She together with complains one while on an away-of-area inspection, Waggoner shared with her to find a journey back again to their unique resorts away from a bank staff because the however end up being out examining assets

Penry plus alludes to research proving that Waggoner starred pranks on her. That prank he starred half dozen to 10 minutes, primarily when you’re she try pregnant. Based on Penry, Waggoner manage sneak up about their unique, lay their practical their particular arms and you can loudly say their label so you’re able to scare their unique. The other a couple of pranks were onetime occurrences. One in June 1990 in which Waggoner kicked on her lodge doorway and hid, and also the almost every other where he eliminated their give throughout the direction controls when you’re operating a motor vehicle in which Penry due to the fact a traveler. Inside her response, Penry says one to she cannot characterize this type of acts as “sexual acts by itself,” however, argues it nevertheless compensate sexual harassment because the “it instruct Waggoner’s men prominence more female employees when you look at the captive issues.” The newest legal disagrees. Penry gift suggestions zero facts, except that conjecture, these particular facts was indeed inspired of the sexual animus otherwise gender bias. In her deposition, Penry says she failed to know very well what passionate such as for instance carry out by the Waggoner. Penry and additionally fails to offer legal service for their “men prominence” concept, and also the judge is not certain to construe just what seems to be gender-natural buffoonery since a presentation out-of “men prominence” over “captive” feminine staff. The point that Penry might have been “isolated payday loans Alamosa East CO and you can by yourself” inside her work cubicle otherwise “captive” into the Waggoner’s auto cannot transfer gender-natural pranks into make driven by the sexual animus otherwise gender prejudice.

Penry also opposes defendants’ conclusion judgment motion with proof Waggoner’s perform during the aside-of-urban area functions tasks. Penry even offers no research why these episodes resulted from gender prejudice or animus. To the contrary, they look become gender basic, because the do Waggoner’s statements, throughout a corporate journey, on their marital trouble. ” The brand new judge finds out no merit to that particular argument. While doing so, Penry’s say that the newest assignment to travel having Waggoner constitutes sexual harassment is even unavailing. In the place of proof quite the opposite, management behavior, even though injudicious, may not be classified as the due to gender. Look for Ballou v. *839 College from Kansas Scientific Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains that inside the March 1990, Waggoner failed to let their elevator hefty boxes during the an on-web site check away from a lender hence she had to consume food which have Waggoner during aside-of-town checks

Penry 2nd opposes defendants’ conclusion judgment actions through providing evidence of Waggoner’s offensive statements and outbursts. Penry complains one Waggoner usually yelled at the Betsworth to own their particular mistakes, that he demeaned Betsworth about her back, and you will asserted that all women on the safekeeping agency was basically “dumb” and this their partner try “ignorant.” Penry plus complains on the Waggoner’s utilization of the label “gals” to refer with the women in his institution. Betsworth testified that Waggoner yelled at the their particular and you will she yelled on him, however, she never experienced he had been abusive to help you their. If you’re such as antics could possibly get sign up for an offensive if you don’t “hostile” ecosystem, there’s no evidence this particular violence produced from certain gender-centered animosity or bias. The new 10th Circuit have kept one to problem of an enthusiastic employee’s performs, instead of some type of gender-specific reference, isnt gender-based run. Terrible, 53 F.three dimensional within 1545-46. At the same time, “dumb” are a gender neutral name because it can use just as so you can both sexes. Id. in the 1543; Young v. Finish line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 during the * 5 (D.Kan.). That it reason in addition to applies to Waggoner’s use of the label “unaware.” Significantly, Penry made in their particular deposition one Waggoner’s utilization of the term “dumb” to mention into feamales in the safekeeping department wasn’t due to sexual animus, but is actually a good example of his general interest out-of excusing his own problems from the moving forward blame to many other events. Ultimately, Penry merchandise zero proof one to Waggoner’s use of the name “gals” stemmed out of sexual animus. According to Waggoner, he used the title out-of behavior, not out regarding sexual animus. Additionally, it would appear that it was not the phrase itself one offended Penry, but that it was utilized by Waggoner. Penry reported that she was not upset whenever their early in the day women manager regarded Penry or other collateral company teams since the “her girls.”